| Standard Essential Patent(SEP),which results from the combination of patent right and technical standard,has the characteristics of both regional and transnational homogeneity.It is precisely based on the above characteristics,in order to save costs and improve the negotiation efficiency,the right holders and implementers often carry out the SEP license negotiation in the way of global license,and the license fee is taken as the core of the license negotiation,thus causing many disputes and lawsuits.However,in the litigation war between the two parties on SEP license fee,based on the regionality of patent rights,enterprises often choose to file lawsuits in the countries that are advantageous to them in order to occupy the dominant position,and at the same time apply for the court to issue an injunction to prevent the defendant from seeking litigation relief from other countries,thus aggravating the conflict of jurisdiction between different countries.In this context,Unwired Planet(UP)v.Huawei Technologies Co.,LTD.(Huawei)and Conversant v.Huawei and ZTE were the first cases in which a British court voluntarily awarded SEP global licensing fees without the parties having reached a jurisdiction agreement,This practice has sparked controversy in intellectual property theory and practice circles around the world over the global licensing fee adjudicated by a national court.The court’s determination of the scope of license and the determination method of license fee directly affects the process of license negotiation and the efficiency of license.Meanwhile,because the regionalism of patent requires that the judicial sovereignty of each country is not infringed,it involves the coordination of patent systems between different jurisdictions.It plays an important role in a country’s control of SEP and even the international discourse of intellectual property rights.Since the above cases directly involve Chinese enterprises and bring great impact and influence to the development and jurisdiction of Chinese wireless communication enterprises,it is necessary to analyze the SEP global license fee ruling of British court,and on the basis of clarifying the impact of the ruling on Chinese countries and enterprises,find out the existing coping mechanism of SEP field in China.This paper puts forward some suggestions for our response to the global jurisdictional competition of SEP in England.The first chapter of this paper firstly defines and clarifies the concept and main characteristics of SEP global license fee.Secondly,on the premise of determining the legal nature of SEP global license fee,it finds out the basis for the formation of SEP global license fee jurisdiction,and compares the existing international practices to pave the way for the rationality of the UK obtaining jurisdiction.The second chapter of this paper mainly analyzes the cases of the United Kingdom competing for the jurisdiction of SEP global license fee,discusses the basis of the court’s judgment,and dialectically judges the rationality and legality.From the perspective of China,the third chapter explores the influence of judicial sovereignty,Chinese litigation-involved enterprises and potential litigation-involved enterprises and other judicial fields,including injunction,recognition and execution.Combined with China’s current system and system deficiencies in dealing with jurisdiction contest of British courts,Expatiate on the need to study English courts competing for global licence fee jurisdiction.The fourth chapter of this paper makes two suggestions on China’s response to the global competition of SEP license fee in Britain.Firstly,we should improve the jurisdiction basis of SEP global license fee in China from the legal text,and establish the injunction mechanism of parallel litigation encountered in the concrete implementation,and improve the cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgment.Secondly,we should start from the enterprise subject.The ultimate goal of litigation can be achieved only by improving the level and standardization of patent R&D and making full use of litigation injunctions. |
